[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by Annorax


I think killing someone is OK as long as they're stupid. Especially if they're stupid enough to skateboard in or around traffic.

He wasn't skateboarding. He was standing by the side of the road.

[Mefustae]

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
He wasn't skateboarding. He was standing by the side of the road.

He could have been skateboarding, News reports such as this aren't exactly infallable in small details...

...indeed, the report actually contradicts itself; In one paragraph it says

A driver who swerved to avoid a cat in the road instead struck a skateboarding teenager, killing him.

While in another paragraph, it clearly states...

Kevin Rivers, 17, of Jacksonville, was standing by the side of the road with his skateboard just before 8:30 p.m.

If he was indeed standing there doing nothing, and it was the fault of the writer for not specifying that clearly, then it's a tragic accident. If he was skateboarding on the road, as is also mentioned in the article, it was the kid's own damn fault, and it's a good thing the Driver isn't been charged...

[Sapphire]

Thats not a contradiction...   He was standing with a skateboard, therefore had probably been skateboarding.  Doesn't mean he was in the act of skateboarding at the moment of the accident.

As much as I love my cat, I'd prefer someone to run him over than to take out one of the neighbor kids to avoid him....  As Goob pointed out, its a tragic accident.  And IMHO it would still be tragic if the kid actually was skateboarding at the side of the road at the time.

[Unknown Target]

Why is it ok to kill him if he was skateboarding?

And the driver was dumb - he could have simply hit the breaks, gone over top of the cat, or swerved to the side. Going completely onto the side of the road is just aweful driving, and this time it had tragic consequences.

[vyper]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I'm going to go out on a limb here and venture to say that I probably would have hit the brakes.

Indeed. Got ABS?

[Mefustae]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
Why is it ok to kill him if he was skateboarding?

And the driver was dumb - he could have simply hit the breaks, gone over top of the cat, or swerved to the side. Going completely onto the side of the road is just aweful driving, and this time it had tragic consequences.

I'm not saying it was ok, i'm saying that if he was indeed skateboarding at the time (although i'm inclined to agree with Sapphire's arguement), it's the kid's own damn fault if he decides to skate on a road at 8:30pm...

In regard to the driver, you have to consider;
1) He was going 50 Miles per Hour. I live in a country that uses a sane measuring system, Kilometres per hour, but 50mph sounds pretty fast to simply put on the breaks. Plus, it's 8:30, so let's assume it was pretty dark, so he wouldn't have seen the cat until it was a few metres from his car, this meaning his reflex would have been to swerve as simply breaking obviously wouldn't have been enough to prevent hitting the cat.
2) The driver obviously holds compassion for other lifeforms, something you clearly lack. I mean, if you were cruising down the road, and saw a cat sitting there, would you have swerved if you knew it was too close to break? Not really, i'm thinking you would have accelerated...
3) Okay, you don't know enough to make that call. We don't know how small the road was, we don't know the condition of the road, and we don't know that he even went onto the footpath, as the article clearly states that the kid was standing on the road itself.

[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by Mefustae
In regard to the driver, you have to consider;
1) He was going 50 Miles per Hour. I live in a country that uses a sane measuring system, Kilometres per hour, but 50mph sounds pretty fast to simply put on the breaks. Plus, it's 8:30, so let's assume it was pretty dark, so he wouldn't have seen the cat until it was a few metres from his car, this meaning his reflex would have been to swerve as simply breaking obviously wouldn't have been enough to prevent hitting the cat.

When I drive down the road at 50 miles per hour, I can hit the breaks hard enough on my car to stop within three feet, and I can swerve to miss an object without going OFF the entire road. On top of that, 8:30 is generally NOT that dark at ALL.

2) The driver obviously holds compassion for other lifeforms, something you obviously lack. I mean, if you were cruising down the road, and saw a cat sitting there, would you have swerved if you knew it was too close to break? Not really, i'm thinking you would have accelerated...

Oh, suddenly I'm a cat-killer because I think that it's bad that the driver killed the person? It seems like you belong to PETA, because you'd rather hit a bystander than a cat. Telling me that I have no respect for life (I do - a great deal), because I think it's wrong that he swerved to miss the cat and instead killed a PERSON, is not only wrong, it's uncalled for.

3) Okay, you don't know enough to make that call. We don't know how small the road was, we don't know the condition of the road, and we don't know that he even went onto the footpath, as the article clearly states that the kid was standing on the road itself.

You're right, we don't know that, but from the article, it sounds like it was a regular road, probably suburban. Like I said before, I can stop within three to four feet - and I drive on one lane roads as well -  I can swerve off the road to avoid an obstacle without going five feet over and sending a kid flying through the air.
And the article said that he was PARTIALLY in the road - that's about maybe three feet (one meter) into the road - not much at all if was a one lane, barely anything if it was a two lane. In both cases, he could have also swerved to the OTHER side of the road, rather than swerving right into a kid.

[aldo_14]

Hard to judge.  Driving, the instinct is to stop for obstacles in from primarily; although even at 40-50mph it should be possible to emergency brake without swerving.

Unfortunately, there's lots we don't know;
- where was the victim? (police say partially in the road; personally, I ****ing hate that, especially driving by school home routes where you have kids walking 4 or 5 abrest, with one walking on the road off the kerb)
- how was the light?  If it was dark, was the victim wearing visible clothing?
- how fast was the car actually going (the witness saying 45-50 was 14; at that age IIRC speed perception is not as good as, say, 18 or 20)?
- was the car in good state; i.e. was it able to go to a controlled stop?
- where and when did the cat come from?  i.e. was it a sudden, instinctive decision to swerve?

EDIt; ok.... from what I can tell, he didn't mount the kerb when swerving.  What sounds mostly likely to me is that he was dirivng - possibly too fast - and a cat jumped in front.  He instinctively swerved away from the middle of the road, and hit the kid standing  at least partly on the road (perhaps half on the kerb).

[Mefustae]

Originally posted by Unknown Target

When I drive down the road at 50 miles per hour, I can hit the breaks hard enough on my car to stop within three feet, and I can swerve to miss an object without going OFF the entire road. On top of that, 8:30 is generally NOT that dark at ALL.

You can, be he might not of. We don't know what kind of car he was driving or the condition of the breaks. We don't know exactly how fast he was going. We don't even know if this man was even a good driver! I know people who have been driving for years and are still a little shaky on the road.

Oh, suddenly I'm a cat-killer because I think that it's bad that the driver killed the person? It seems like you belong to PETA, because you'd rather hit a bystander than a cat. Telling me that I have no respect for life (I do - a great deal), because I think it's wrong that he swerved to miss the cat and instead killed a PERSON, is not only wrong, it's uncalled for.

No, you misunderstood me. You see, the driver obviously didn't know the kid was there, as if he did, I truly doubt he would have swerved. You didn't honestly think that I would prefer to hit some kid I knew was there rather than a Cat did you? Ask yourself this, given that you cannot simply break, and you saw a cat on the road, would you swerve? And if so, how can you call the driver 'dumb' for avoiding a cat?

You're right, we don't know that, but from the article, it sounds like it was a regular road, probably suburban. Like I said before, I can stop within three to four feet - and I drive on one lane roads as well -  I can swerve off the road to avoid an obstacle without going five feet over and sending a kid flying through the air.
And the article said that he was PARTIALLY in the road - that's about maybe three feet (one meter) into the road - not much at all if was a one lane, barely anything if it was a two lane. In both cases, he could have also swerved to the OTHER side of the road, rather than swerving right into a kid.

We have no idea what the road was, and we have no idea how far the kid was standing out on the street. We don't know how dark it was. We don't know what the kid was doing at the time. We don't know much, and the American media is renowned around the world for exaggeration. And in regard to swerving to the other side of the road, I refer back to the point that he did not know the kid was standing there on the road.

[BlackDove]

Guy ran over a kid.

Is the debate really necessary?

[aldo_14]

Nope.

[vyper]

Originally posted by Mefustae
I'm not saying it was ok, i'm saying that if he was indeed skateboarding at the time (although i'm inclined to agree with Sapphire's arguement), it's the kid's own damn fault if he decides to skate on a road at 8:30pm...

In regard to the driver, you have to consider;
1) He was going 50 Miles per Hour. I live in a country that uses a sane measuring system, Kilometres per hour, but 50mph sounds pretty fast to simply put on the breaks. Plus, it's 8:30, so let's assume it was pretty dark, so he wouldn't have seen the cat until it was a few metres from his car, this meaning his reflex would have been to swerve as simply breaking obviously wouldn't have been enough to prevent hitting the cat.

The one thing my instructor used to say, was that given the choice between hitting an animal and swerving - brake, but hit the animal if you can't stop in time. This is a good example why -

* swerve to the right and you don't know what's coming towards you (well, most of the time - this was really meant for suburban roads where you have limited space, and many bends. Obviously if you have empty three lanes beside you, go for it)

* swerve to the left and you either meet the kerb and bounce back across the road resulting in the first problem again, or meet a wall at the side of the road and damn near kill yourself.

*swerve to the left and as happened here, hit a pedestrian.

Options: When you might hit a person by carrying straight on. Then you do an emergency stop, and pray you can shift back into gear in time to get out of a possible rear-ender form the guy behind you.

The moral of the story is kids, if you don't know what's around you, don't swerve for animals.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by vyper
The one thing my instructor used to say, was that given the choice between hitting an animal and swerving - brake, but hit the animal if you can't stop in time.

Exactly.

Originally posted by Mefustae
The same should be said to those of you saying the driver should have hit the cat. After you've lost a beloved family pet, then you can say things like that.

Which hurts more: losing a beloved family pet, or losing a beloved son, daughter, or sibling?

[castor]

Lock this crap already, thx.

[Goober5000]

That's probably a good idea.